1v1 Institutional Counterparty Comparison
Cryptectum vs Magic Compass: Regulation, 6D Ratings & Safety Audit
Deterministic head-to-head benchmarking of Cryptectum (Cryptectum) and Magic Compass (Magic Compass Ltd) across primary regulatory filings, statutory Tier-1 authorisations, 6-Dimension compliance scores, execution software, and warning exposure.
Coverage: Investment firms and financial institutions headquartered across Continental Europe
- Cryptectum 6D Score
- 5.0
- Magic Compass 6D Score
- 6.7
- Regulated Licences
- 0 vs 1
- Warning Flags
- 0 vs 0
Magic Compass outranks Cryptectum by +1.7 pts in composite 6D scoring (6.7 vs 5.0)
On supervisory breadth, Cryptectum holds 0 active regulated licence(s) (0 Tier-1) out of 0 total filings and 0 warning count(s), whereas Magic Compass holds 1 active regulated licence(s) (0 Tier-1) out of 1 total filings and 0 warning count(s). Allocators should inspect the individual licence numbers and contracting legal entities below before onboarding.
6-Dimension Quantitative Scorecard Comparison
Head-to-head breakdown across all 6 proprietary evaluation dimensions (0.0–10.0 scale).
| Evaluation Dimension | Methodology Weight | Cryptectum | Magic Compass | Score Delta | Dimension Leader |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Composite 6D Score | 100% Composite | 5.0 | 6.7 | +1.7 | Magic Compass |
| Regulatory & Licensing Integrity (riskScore) | 30% Weight | 5.0 | 4.2 | +0.8 | Cryptectum |
| Execution & Software Infrastructure (industryScore) | 20% Weight | 1.0 | 4.0 | +3.0 | Magic Compass |
| User Reputation & Complaint Telemetry (userScore) | 20% Weight | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | Statistical Tie |
| Institutional Brand Longevity (brandScore) | 15% Weight | 5.0 | 6.8 | +1.8 | Magic Compass |
| Global Market Influence & Footprint (influenceScore) | 15% Weight | 5.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | Statistical Tie |
Visual Architecture Benchmark: Cryptectum vs Magic Compass
Vector comparison exhibit generated from live supervisory snapshot metrics.
Regulatory Standing, Entity & Platform Comparison
Structural comparison of supervisory authorisations, domicile, execution terminals, and risk telemetry.
| Audit Attribute | Cryptectum | Magic Compass |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Legal Name | Cryptectum | Magic Compass Ltd |
| Source Risk Classification | Risk level not supplied | Risk level not supplied |
| Active Regulated / Total Filings | 0 regulated / 0 total (0 Tier-1) | 1 regulated / 1 total (0 Tier-1) |
| Recorded Certificate Numbers | None on file | |
| Registered Domicile / Address | CH | :Sarlo 9, Ayios Athanasios, 4106 Limassol, Cyprus |
| Offered Asset Classes & Services | Multi-asset financial services | Forex, metals, spot index, vitality |
| Execution Software & Terminals | Proprietary / Web Platform | Proprietary / Web Platform |
| Supported Client Languages | English | English |
| Warning / Exposure Count | 0 recorded warning(s) | 0 recorded warning(s) |
| Specialized Sub-Page Audits |
Related 1v1 Institutional Comparisons
Compare Cryptectum and Magic Compass against other regulated peers in our investment firms and financial institutions headquartered across continental europe slice.
Frequently Asked Questions: Cryptectum vs Magic Compass
Deterministic counterparty comparison answers derived from supervisory records.
Which institution has stronger regulatory oversight: Cryptectum or Magic Compass?
Magic Compass holds more active regulated filings (1 vs 0). Specifically, Cryptectum maintains 0 total recorded filing(s) (none on file) with 0 warning flag(s), whereas Magic Compass maintains 1 recorded filing(s) (CYSEC) with 0 warning flag(s). Always confirm the specific subsidiary onboarding your account on the official regulator register.
How do the 6D quantitative compliance scores compare between Cryptectum and Magic Compass?
In Euro Firm Ledger's 6-Dimension scoring matrix (0.0–10.0 scale), Cryptectum records an Overall Score of 5.0 (Risk & Licensing: 5.0, Brand: 5.0, Market Influence: 5.0, User Reputation: 0.0, Execution & Software: 1.0), compared with Magic Compass at 6.7 Overall (Risk & Licensing: 4.2, Brand: 6.8, Market Influence: 5.0, User Reputation: 0.0, Execution & Software: 4.0).
How do Cryptectum and Magic Compass differ in trading platforms and asset classes?
Cryptectum lists general financial services with execution software [proprietary/web execution], while Magic Compass lists Forex, metals, spot index, vitality with execution software [proprietary/web execution]. Counterparties should verify FIX/API connectivity, server routing topology, and negative balance protection per entity.
Which counterparty carries lower regulatory warning and complaint exposure: Cryptectum or Magic Compass?
Cryptectum carries a "Risk level not supplied" classification with 0 warning/exposure count(s) and 0 user comment(s), while Magic Compass carries a "Risk level not supplied" classification with 0 warning/exposure count(s) and 0 user comment(s).
Structured against supervisory register snapshots and public regulatory filings. Verify your contracting legal entity and current authorisation status directly on the issuing regulator’s official register before transacting.